MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094713212 · doi:10.1177/1053815112453767

Follow-Up of the Cues and Care Trial

2012· article· en· W2094713212 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Intervention · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineMcGill UniversityUniversity of TorontoJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAnxietyRandomized controlled trialBayley Scales of Infant DevelopmentIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyChild developmentLow birth weightPsychiatryCognitionMedicinePregnancyPsychomotor learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long-term effects of the Cues intervention to reduce anxiety and enhance the interactive behavior of mothers of very low birth weight (VLBW) infants were investigated. A randomized trial comparing the Cues intervention to an attention control condition was conducted. A total of 122 mothers of newborns weighing < 1,500 g were randomized, and 96 participated in a follow-up assessment when the infants were 6 months corrected age. Maternal outcomes included anxiety, posttraumatic stress and depression, and mother–infant interaction. The Bayley Scales were used to assess infant development. Mother’s anxiety was not significantly lower in the Cues group (27.8 [ SD = 7.9]) compared with the control group (30.5 [ SD = 10.0]; p = 0.14). Mothers in the Cues group were not more sensitive in interactions with their infants. There were no differences between groups with respect to infant development. Thus, there was no evidence of any differential beneficial effects of the Cues program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it